Posted By Zoe Barnett The success of Trade Unionism as a means of safety management would surely depend on factors that would have to be decided before unionisation could take on this role. (Please note I say Unionisation rather than "being a member of a Union." TUs do excellent work at the moment but I think we are talking about a very marked shift in their responsibility here.) For a start, excellent levels of trust and co-operation would need to be built between all the various Unions represented in the workplace. Similar relationships would be needed between the Unions and the employer. Without these in place - and let's face it, there are plenty of workplaces where they are not! - the whole concept would not be able to translate into reality. There would also have to be realistic levels of communication, training and expertise amongst those who would have this safety-related role. I suspect that meeting the costs of achieving this would be a bone of contention! The union personnel involved would need to have extremely high status both with management and employees. Without this they will not have any authority at any level. Last but not least - how would we know when a workplace was ready and competent to manage its safety performance in this way? Is there a case for some form of benchmarking? I know my points are pretty basic, but I do think this is perhaps a rich seam for further debate.

Posted By Sean Fraser I agree with what you say Zoe - I also believe it needs to be more of a partnership approach than the commonly perceived adversarial role, but I understand that many unions are now working along those lines and are less likely to resort to industrial action until they have at least attempted the negotiation route (putting aside the legislation enacted in the 1980's that made action more difficult to legally carry out). But it is the threat of action that provides the lever for unions and was traditionally the source of their power. Talk softly and carry a big stick. If they were simply an advisory body, they would be nothing more than employees (rather than employers) association. Just to tease this one out a bit more, I am also interested in the views of the Forum regarding the proposed statutory recognition of Improvement Notices from Union Safety Reps that the TUC is promoting - would this be a good thing, since they could be filling the void created by fewer enforcement body inspections overall?

Posted By Kevin Walker Statistics are a great tool with it you can create anything. It wasn't long ago people in this forum were talking about sponsered reports written by interest groups and bias. Unions have their place and I agree that if there is no co-operation then there is nothing. There have been many cases where unions have used health and safety as methods to get pay rises, overtime payments, extra benefits while at the same time saying that bonus payments systems were bad for health and safety reasons as tired workers have more accidents. In regard to union reps giving out infringement notices, all is well and good if 1. they know what they are doing and are well informed and trained and 2. they have no agenda. kevin

Posted By Merv Newman I work in an environment (France) where every company with 50 or more employees must have a works safety committee which will be chaired by a member of management but members are usually nominated by employees. Each tranche of 500 employees will have its own committee. Quarterly meetings and the factory inspector must always be invited. Their brief is "Health, Safety and Working conditions". Members have a legal right to training. Unfortuantely this training tends to concentrate on the legal obligations of employeers and the rights of employees. They have an absolute right to be consulted on any planned significant changes to the work environment and to conduct an inquiry into any serious, fatal or repeated injury. The responses from zoe and fats are spot on. Where there is good partnership between committee members and management it works like a dream. And they can help in getting the message across, both ways. When the committee members see that thir input is appreciated then they help to generate enthusiasm and to get the mesage across Everyone benefits. The major problem arises when there is an adversarial relationship between the two parties. This happens particularly around the time of wage negotiations and can be seriously affected by national issues which really have nothing to do with the direct employer. However, both sides seem to accept that "it is seasonal" Due to the biased training of members there is a considerable lack of expertise in practical Health and Safety. Audits tend to come up with "a smell in the toilets" or "a cold draft when the warehouse door is open" My major problem, even with a good partnership, is that management is usually convinced that "employees cause accidents" while unions are absolutely certain that "accidents are caused by managers"

Posted By Paul Crump As an active TUC safety rep I have read with interest some of the comments that have been posted in this thread. I would just like to clarify the point regarding PIN`s (Provisional Improvement Notice) or UIN`s (Union Improvement Notice) from a trade union perspective. Basically a UIN is a formal notice issued to an employer from a trained accredited safety rep. It is a method to deal with a situation where a clear breach of health and safety law has been identified and the employer has been informed via the agreed channels but has failed to take action to rectify the problem. It is not a method to deal with hazards that pose an immediate risk to employees. The information contained in the UIN would be as follows:  A clear identification of the legislation that has been breached.  A clear explanation of the steps required to rectify the problem.  The amount of time that the employer has to respond to the UIN. PIN`s, as they are known in Australia have been very successful. They are rarely issued and in most cases where they are disputed the enforcement agencies have found in the favour of the safety rep. Obviously it must be fairly difficult for an employer to argue the point when a clear breach of health and safety law exists. I would welcome a change to the SRSC Regs to include the right to issue UIN`s. I cant really see what arguments employers would have against UIN`s being introduced. At the end of the day, irrespective of relationships, partnerships or sceptical ideas of unions using health and safety as a bargaining tool. A UIN is only being issued where the employer is breach of the law and has already been informed of this in writing by a trained safety rep but has taken no action. I look forward to your replies Regards Paul

Posted By Paul Crump Rob As far as I am aware, safety reps issuing UIN`s would have had to complete the stage 1 and 2 TUC safety reps course and the 36 week TUC certificate in OSH. In addition to this there are now 2 day courses being run that deal specifically with issuing UIN`s. Regards Paul

Posted By Sean Fraser Ah but Alec, is the integrity and qualification issue not what the TUC are promoting? The implication is that the unions are an organised trade body, with a democratic membership. This provides it with a mandate, and one of those elements is the health and safety at work of it's members. Since it has funding, it can provide training and more importantly, this can be consistent and hence recognisable training. On the basis of this, it "empowers" the trained individual to speak with some It is this that allows them to propose a nation-wide system of supporting the statutory inspectors by providing a lower-tier inspection capability that could be statutorily recognised. Of course, the union also has the power to enforce the UIN through potential industrial action. This is something that an ordinary safety rep, no matter how well qualified or experienced, could not rely upon without statutory power through the court. The point is that it is not because they are union that qualifies them, but the support they have behind them.

Posted By Alec Wood Outside of the public sector, union membership is decreasing rapidly so fewer workforces come under the auspices of a trade union rep. We should be looking forward to how we will manage safety in the future, not how we would have liked to have managed it in the past. A sudden rennaisance in union membership is about as likely as me being the next PM. Please do not mistake my argument to be against union reps, which I am certainly not, but I think we should be looking to give ALL workers access to reps of such a standard. Giving ROES the powers and privelege which union reps currently enjoy would go a long way to lifting standards in all areas. Only political considerations led to the disparity, the neutering of the ROES, and our occupational safety should be above politics. Continous talk of increasing the power of union reps distracts this and is designed solely to help their political masters retain their dominating influence on the public sector workforce. Alec Wood Samsung Electronics

Posted By Alec Wood And these very establishments are probably the least likely to be unionised. Obviously the unions would not pay for the training of non-union people, but that does not preclude the same kind of courses being offered by others. These questions existed when reps were first proposed, and solutions were found. I have no doubt they could be in this case too. Perhaps the TUC could also offer these courses on a fee paying basis, helping top up their revenues from dwindling membership. The attempts by the unions and their supporters to turn occupational health & safety into a closed shop, and freely allow, or indeed encourage, the injury or worse of the majority of the country's private sector workforce beggars belief at times. Alec Wood Samsing Electronics

Posted By Alec Wood Surely that depends on the method of selection, which is equally applicable to all reps, ROES or union. A ROES appointed by manager is not really a "representative" in the commonly used meaning of the word, but the same is equally true when the shop steward puts his buddy up as safety rep and his hit squad discourages all other candidates! In our company ROES volounteered and were elected to represent a given area of the business. I would say that they therefore genuinely represent those employees, wouldn't you? I'd like to hope this was the norm rather than the exception. Alec Wood

Posted By Ian Waldram I did try to respond to the questions, but no one since has commented on my comments. Any interested researchers?

Posted By Ron Young The whole argument seems to hinge on one of the old forum chestnuts, "competence". If a TU safety rep was regarded and accepted as competent by his/her employer i.e. relevant training, experience and knowledge, then his/her word would be better respected and more likely followed. However, in my experience, TU safety reps do not have the necessary "competence" to debate with a "competent" safety manager re points of law. Sure there will be exceptions to this but when I started out in H&S , I was told that if a TU safety rep knew more about H&S than me, I & he are in the wrong job! For a TU safety rep to be accepted as competent, he/she has a lot of convincing to do, exactly the same way most safety officers started out in this profession. I pity the TU safety rep in a company without a safety manager, it would appear to be doubly difficult to be accepted.

Posted By Alec Wood I am not by any means saying that all union reps are purely political animals, or indeed that their is no validity in their role within their workplace, the thrust of my argument throughout seems to have been ignored because of the politicisation of the issue. Union membership is in decline, especially outside the public sector. To focus on union reps and ignore the issues surrounding the lack of protection, privelige and especially training offered to those outside the unionised areans, ROES, is frankly wrong and condemns the majority of those working in the private sector to at best a "nil improvement" and at worst a steady erosion in standards of occupational health & safety. As a safety professional, I have nothing but admiration for those who would put there necks on the line and enter into unprotected conflict with management in order to raise standards and address issues. However, it has been my experience so far, that the field is becoming more and more dominated by those who seek to make it a closed shop. Instead of always talking about giving union reps more powers, we should instead seek to level the playing field a bit more and secure some more protection for ROES, and statutory rights to training etc as enjoyed by their union counterparts. To do anything less is to say that a two tier standard of occupational safety is OK, and that as long as the unionised places are fine, the rest can go to hell in a handcart. The issues of what we do outside unionised working environments is one which will become more urgent as unionisation retreats to being a luxury of the public worker only. Alec Wood

Posted By Paul Crump In response to comments regarding union membership view the DTI report for 2003 by viewing the link below. http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar/tum2003.pdf regards Paul

Posted By Sean Fraser I'm watching with interst on how this thread develops (as I should - I posted it!). As I expected, there are some relatively polarised views emerging with experiences both positive and negative. I feel it is a legitimate concern that recognition of UINs is OK for unionised workforces, but what about the many that have no such unionisation? It would, as has been pointed out, create a 2-tier level of safety management that should be avoided. It also correct that union membership has fallen over the years since the "high point" of the late 70's, although the amalgamations and reduction in militancy by all the unions has been their response to improve of flagging membership. We should face the fact that although millions are members of trade unions, millions more are not. What of them? Who would look out for their interests? But that was the point of the question - would an increase in safety activism by the unions be encouraged by boosting membership through advocation to workforces to unionise, so they could benefit from this service? Should that be a factor in the advice we provide. Remember, although we are often piping to the payers tune, we still should entertain the crowd.

Posted By Barry Steging I have to say I don't entirely agree with your comments about reps. being enthusiastic. I have seen three of my fellow reps. made reduntant last Christmas, all on trumped up reasons. And all because they were doing there safety roles well. The union came in, but were toothless Tigers and didn't help them at all. My personal experience is I take a lot of flak from a management who do not like being advised where they are going wrong (even where they are not conforming to statutary regulations)but also complain of high insurance premiums. I would like to see even more protection for safety reps. Maybe to the point where unions post reps. at companies who's sole job is to oversee safety.